About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
. the constitution promises freedom of religion. not freedom from religion. when we heard about santa monica, 59 consecutive years, we said we had to get involved. we have this project called the nativity project. we encourage individual citizens to get a permit. we found a loophole, incredible loophole in santa monica and there is going to be a nativity display there for year 60. the federal judge banned unattended displays. not live nativities like you see here. so december 8, christians and people of good will from all across southern california are coming to passion sides park and there will be a nativity scene. i have here our permit. we had this in front of the united states supreme court yesterday. this is our permit. i would encourage anyone who is having a problem in their community, with nativity scenes, if we are allowed to have a display in front of the united states supreme court and the united states capitol, then any citizen can display the beauty of christmas, the power of christmas, the wonderful message of hope and we're work with pastor dole right now. >> gretchen: so pastor d
violating his first amendment rights of freedom of religion. i want to bring in our legal analyst joey jackson in the studio with me. >> hello, brooke. >> the obvious question is did the judge violate his rights reportedly it's actually legal? >> first of all, most of my clients, brooke, would love to be sentenced to ten years of church instead of jail. >> right. >> now, on that basis, knowing that and understanding that, if the defendant consented to the sentence, it's not a violation of the defendant's rights. if the defendant did not, it becomes problematic. here's why. first amendment, separation between church and state. we can establish a religion of our choosing, and practice a religion of our choosing. as a result of that separation, a judge and court cannot impose on you you have to go to any church at all irrespective of your faith. >> can the aclu step in? >> fwo problems. one, the issue of consent. the second is however a very technical issue, brooke. and that is standing. the person who sues has to be aggrieved, has to be affected, has to be damaged by the suit. and if the
in any way is an establishment of religion. there is no officially supported secretary or denomination in the manner, this is not in any way an endorsement of any particular religion or any religious denomination. in short the first amendment as originally written had nothing to do with the city sign. indeed, for the first 175 years of our constitutional history, no one would have read the first amendment in this way. they would have -- any way that would have prevented this seal or sign. mr. speaker, in this very room in which i stand, this very chamber, right over my right-hand shoulder is a sign that says in god we trust. the rotunda in the capitol, a chapel that's been in use since 1955 as a place where members go to pray for divine guidance in debating the issues of the day. a stained glass window there shows president george washington kneeling in prayer and the words of saum 16:1 surround him, preserve me, o god, for in thee i put my trust. and the holy bible rests on that altar. i'll grant you, the first amendment has been badly interpreted by the u.s. supreme court, and the 10
to be a reference to religion there is a problem and they have to stop it. the alliance for freedom says what's next. a student being told she can't recite the gettysburg address because the president refers to one nation under god? and refer to the lays of nature's god? after the line was deleted in the poem. the superintendent is getting together with the school board and principal to see if he made the right decision, then they are going to go forward with policy from here on out. but the line in the poem is out. and the policy for now really has been been defined on how they will deal with this in the future. don't be surprised if there is legal thanks this as well. megyn: all right, trace, thank you. coming up. glenn beck and vince vaughn. what are these two doing together? wait until you hear it. glenn beck very hopeful about it. we'll update you. plus it may look like a scene from "the walking dead" but it's a training exercise that you the taxpayer helped fund. see why one lawmaker says this is a multi-billion dollar problem. [gunshots and screams] now, i'm on a bayer aspirin regimen. [ male
a business. why are we spending any time dealing with people's health, their religion, their views of the world, their race is none of hour business, who they love is none of our business but their health care is. small business people know this is a terrible burden on them. let's get it off the books of business where it is inefficient and on to the books of -- that's what every other modern country has done. we spend $2.64 per capita for every dollar the other modern countries spend on health care. if we got to the level of the french, universal care, no out-of-pocket costs and probably the best system in the world, it would totally almost eliminate the individual income tax. that's how much we are wasting. >> the idea of entitlement, if you think about the fact that they are saying, these folks think they are entitled to health care, entitled to this and that and you are entitled to a 15% tax rate. that's a subsidy. that is its own form of welfare. you get to not be taxed. therefore, we lose billions of dollars but you want to make sure that people don't make the right wage or h
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)